I've decided I might like to have a camera that I can throw in a pocket and carry around without it being uncomfortable. That also means it should be able to withstand some bumps. I was hoping not to spend much more than $200. I've used a few digital cameras, but I've never really researched them in depth so I don't know what to look for. Currently I have a Nikon Coolpix 4100, and it's everything I ever want from a camera except that it's too bulky to carry in a pocket. I see a lot of cameras out there that look about half the size of my 4100, and most of them have twice the megapixels (8 verses the 4 on my camera), but I see cameras like that retailing for as much as $100 less than my 4100 even though it's a few years old now. If I'm looking at cameras that advertise twice the megapixels in a smaller package, but are less expensive than what my old camera still sells for, what are they missing that my camera has? I'm hesitant to spend money on something like that when I don't understand where the price difference comes from. I don't need 8 megapixels, anyway - 4 is fine. Is it possible for me to get a camera that takes the same quality pictures as my 4100 in a smaller package without spending a lot more money? Specifically I'm concerned with the quality of close-up pictures. I like close-ups, and my 4100 is the only camera I've ever had that takes them well. See the below picture of a hair on my fingernail for an example of what I mean. Is there a camera out there that'll still do that with a smaller package and a reasonable price tag? I'm partial to Nikons and I'd like to buy one if I'm to get another camera. But if the answer is that it couldn't take the above image, I guess I'll have to stick with what I have. Thanks in advance for any help.